Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

B0jangles

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Benefits of communism no need for theory 100 years 100 million dead three times that of Nazism if you were to attribute all deaths genocide and those resulting from aggressive war to them.

So this is why I can't take you seriously because you are essential saying, ya I dont like that ideology that kills people but this one that is every bit as bad is justifiable because at least they are not killing people based on ethnicity/race. Which slightly off topic is not true Marx referred to certain ethnic groups in a published paper around 1848 as racial trash called for their elimination not to mention Communist leadership in the USSR specifically targeting and killing certain ethnic groups that were seen as problematic to give but two examples.

A core belief of communism and radical socialism is the elimination of anyone who so much as thinks differently, proven historical fact. Now the question for you is are you going to be consistent, both advocate genocide and mass killing yet you seem fine with giving one a pass, totally inconstant with your previous line of argument.

But at least we see your true colours. Which is useful to know when arguing against you and explains at least in part your ideological opposition to free speech. Again both I would allow all to speak you seem to be motivated by ideology and willing to give one over the other a pass dispute similar approaches to the way in which they treat people.

Look, I'm neither a Communist or a Socialist, much as you would like to paint me as one to make it easier to dismiss me.

The Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are on the rise. They are here and they are loud.

If someone starts making speeches in support of racial segregation or elimination based on Marx's racist comments from 1848, I'll happily call for them to be deprived of a platform to spread their hateful views. Until that happens, I'll be here calling for Neo-Nazi's and White Supremacists to be deprived of the oxygen of a public platform to spread their hate.

Jcarroll07

20Cent wrote: »

Which race do communists propose to liquidate?

The socialist Scandinavian countries don't have death camps. Who does Jeremy Corbin want killed?

Why dont you ask the ukrainians or the tartars or another ethnic group persecuted by the USSR. In addition your intellectually founder Marx specifically referred to certain ethnic groups as "racial trash" in a published 1848 article. Pretty explicit they will kill who every they want. Or do you actually think "equality of the bullet" is a good idea.

TBH this sort of deflection, trivialisation or outright denial of the crimes and mass murder, is no different to flat earther or holocaust denial arguments, its pathetic and a prime reason why we should not take argument from people like you that they are acting for the other peoples good when advocating censorship because your just pushing the same policy you have always wanted but trying to mask it with a moral panic of some sort or another. I mean Jesus you are standing over the murder of 100 million people and not even blinking and yet you have the sheer brazenness to criticise others because they are not killing them in the precise way that you would.

Like I said before both disgusting ideologies but I would still not advocate restrictions, like here sun light is the best disinfectant, and is utterly discrediting your entire argument for all to see.

Red_Wake

20Cent wrote: »

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Not sure if your trolling now, if so not bad but could be better, but if not you seriously need to read a history book. Both engaged in mass murder and the liquidation of "enemies" (anyone and every one) on scale never seen before in human history. Yet you are ok with it provided they use the correct label. This is effetely discrediting your entire argument up until this point. But like I said sunlight is the best disinfectant good to see the true colours however abhorrent they may be. But we now know at least you believe in equality of the bullet guessing that is seen as progressive by some.

Which race do communists propose to liquidate?

The socialist Scandinavian countries don't have death camps. Who does Jeremy Corbin want killed?

Scandinavian countries are social democracies, they are not socialist states.

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

Look, I'm neither a Communist or a Socialist, much as you would like to paint me as one to make it easier to dismiss me.

The Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are on the rise. They are here and they are loud.

If someone starts making speeches in support of racial segregation or elimination based on Marx's racist comments from 1848, I'll happily call for them to be deprived of a platform to spread their hateful views. Until that happens, I'll be here calling for Neo-Nazi's and White Supremacists to be deprived of the oxygen of a public platform to spread their hate.

Ok but do you also call for the "deprivation of oxygen" to communist given the crimes they have committed. My main point here is trying to establish the consistency of your argument and its logical conclusion. Are you only targeting one group if so why. Is it ok to advocate the liquidation of people on mass provided you believe in "equality of the bullet". If so your whole argument is discredited if not then you need to make that clear. Also its far easier to find someone arguing for communism then nazism pretty much every week in the debating chamber yet seems to go unnoticed they exist in far larger numbers and advocate a similarly destructive and to put plainly historically evil system. Yet we are fixating on one group.

I want to know do we target all? If so how? Who draws the line? How do you prevent concept creep? Again i say I believe all beliefs no matter how abhorrent should be able to be expressed because as is being seen here sun light and speech is the best disinfectants.

Edit: Plus I am not trying to paint you as anything I am trying to establish if there is intellectually consistency to your argument and i you are willing to admit and accept the logical conclusions of it.

B0jangles

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Ok but do you also call for the "deprivation of oxygen" to communist given the crimes they have committed. My main point here is trying to establish the consistency of your argument and its logical conclusion. Are you only targeting one group if so why. Is it ok to advocate the liquidation of people on mass provided you believe in "equality of the bullet". If so your whole argument is discredited if not then you need to make that clear. Also its far easier to find someone arguing for communism then nazism pretty much every week in the debating chamber yet seems to go unnoticed they exist in far larger numbers and advocate a similarly destructive and to put plainly historically evil system. Yet we are fixating on one group.

I want to know do we target all? If so how? Who draws the line? How do you prevent concept creep? Again i say I believe all beliefs no matter how abhorrent should be able to be expressed because as is being seen here sun light and speech is the best disinfectants.

My personal line would be 'Is this political ideology founded on the importance of eliminating entire races of people Y/N?'

Communism? N
Socialism? N
Nazism? Y

Simple.

20Cent

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Why dont you ask the ukrainians or the tartars or another ethnic group persecuted by the USSR. In addition your intellectually founder Marx specifically referred to certain ethnic groups as "racial trash" in a published 1848 article. Pretty explicit they will kill who every they want. Or do you actually think "equality of the bullet" is a good idea.

TBH this sort of deflection, trivialisation or outright denial of the crimes and mass murder, is no different to flat earther or holocaust denial arguments, its pathetic and a prime reason why we should not take argument from people like you that they are acting for the other peoples good when advocating censorship because your just pushing the same policy you have always wanted but trying to mask it with a moral panic of some sort or another. I mean Jesus you are standing over the murder of 100 million people and not even blinking and yet you have the sheer brazenness to criticise others because they are not killing them in the precise way that you would.

Like I said before both disgusting ideologies but I would still not advocate restrictions, like here sun light is the best disinfectant, and is utterly discrediting your entire argument for all to see.

I'm not a communist or a socialist and not denying any of those things happened. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just saying that it's a false equivalence to say communists protesting outside a Tory conference are the same as Nazi's.

B0jangles

20Cent wrote: »

I'm not a communist or a socialist and not denying any of those things happened. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just saying that it's a false equivalence to say communists protesting outside a Tory conference are the same as Nazi's.

That's a commonality between all of these horrific regimes - centralized power, usually controlled at the top by a single person. If the person at the top isn't already a monster, they'll probably become one.

DickSwiveller

20Cent wrote: »

I'm not a communist or a socialist and not denying any of those things happened. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just saying that it's a false equivalence to say communists protesting outside a Tory conference are the same as Nazi's.

It isn't. They carry the hammer and sickle flag of the Soviet Union.

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

My personal line would be 'Is this political ideology founded on the importance of eliminating entire races of people Y/N?'

Communism? N
Socialism? N
Nazism? Y

Simple.

So you actually believe in equality of the bullet. If that "progressive" standard is met you can kill anyone you want and or advocate it provided you make it clear it is equal opportunity when it comes to being sent to the gas chamber? Also Communism is a historically proven yes on that account.

So there we have it you can advocate mass killing and genocide provided you have the right label pretexting your actions. Think this whole trend has proved the benefit o free speech, exposes hypocrisy and shines a light on those who claim to be about protecting people yet don't mind or see the need to confront an ideology that has murdered 100 million people.

The main issue which is ultimately problematic when it comes to free speech is that you are totally inconstant, and advocate or give a pass to one system that believe its ok to murder people on mass, yet argue that free speech is dangerous because some might argue in favour of another systems that murder people on mass. Just totally inconstant would only be advocated by some who thinks murder in the form of one is fine but not the other. That why you or people/governments like you should not be trusted when it comes to regulating free speech you would total abuse it.

Jcarroll07

20Cent wrote: »

I'm not a communist or a socialist and not denying any of those things happened. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just saying that it's a false equivalence to say communists protesting outside a Tory conference are the same as Nazi's.

How one murdered 30+ million the other murdered 100+ million. People who advocate either are equally repulsive and despicable human beings.

osarusan

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Like I said before both disgusting ideologies but I would still not advocate restrictions, like here sun light is the best disinfectant, and is utterly discrediting your entire argument for all to see.

I think this is actually a bit simplistic, and assumes that everybody is open to rational argument and will weigh evidence accordingly.

To take the examples of young earth creationists and flat-earthers - is there any part of their argument that has not already been discredited?

They don't believe what they do because it is the argument that sounds most rational to them, or because they haven't had enough exposure to those rational arguments. The believe them because they want to - because it is part of their ideology. If somebody living in the western world in 2018 is a believer in a flat earth, I don't think we can assume that dismantling the argument yet again will make much difference to them.

And lets not forget that in some cases, these ideologies are targeted at those who are most hungry for them, or vulnerable to them, whether that is through anger, desperation, or some other reason, such as simply looking for somebody else to blame. Certainly, any person looking at it on its merits will recognise the argument for the nonsense it is, but that may never have been the target audience anyway - the target audience being those who will believe it because it suits them to believe it.

I'm generally in favour of the 'expose and discredit' argument, but we must recognise that while most will realise a particular idea has been utterly dismantled, there will be those who won't, and the 'expose and discredit' argument actually serves to facilitate dissemination of the ideas. And the impact it has on those should be considered, as well as the impact they might have on others.

Jcarroll07

osarusan wrote: »

........ And the impact it has on those should be considered, as well as the impact they might have on others.

You make fair points, but like I said there will need to be an intellectually constant approach you ban one extreme you should ban the other. Yet many are happy to give one a pass over the other mainly due to ideological/political reasons. Thats the problem with restricting free speech it is totally open to abuse by people who don't mind committing crimes provided those crimes fit within their ideological justification. Its inconstant and if you are in consistent then you will be abusive when welding such power as being able to restrict speech that a proven historical fact.

That is why there must be genuine free speech in order to prevent such abuses and manipulations.

B0jangles

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

So you actually believe in equality of the bullet. If that "progressive" standard is met you can kill anyone you want and or advocate it provided you make it clear it is equal opportunity when it comes to being sent to the gas chamber? Also Communism is a historically proven yes on that account.

So there we have it you can advocate mass killing and genocide provided you have the right label pretexting your actions. Think this whole trend has proved the benefit o free speech, exposes hypocrisy and shines a light on those who claim to be about protecting people yet don't mind or see the need to confront an ideology that has murdered 100 million people.

The main issue which is ultimately problematic when it comes to free speech is that you are totally inconstant, and advocate or give a pass to one system that believe its ok to murder people on mass, yet argue that free speech is dangerous because some might argue in favour of another systems that murder people on mass. Just totally inconstant would only be advocated by some who thinks murder in the form of one is fine but not the other. That why you or people/governments like you should not be trusted when it comes to regulating free speech you would total abuse it.

I've read this three times and I'm still not sure what you are saying?

I think you're saying that I should be in favour of barring any speaker if they are speaking for any political system that has been in power when atrocities were carried out in a country? Whether or not the actual core tenets of the system of politics were the main driver of the atrocities.

If that was the case, I don't think I'd be able to support speakers in favour of any political system; at this point I doubt if there if any political structure which has been tried that hasn't committed some kind of savagery.

For now, I'll stick with barring Nazis. (Stalinists too, though I don't think they are as popular these days as Nazis seem to be.)

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

I've read this three times and I'm still not sure what you are saying?

I think you're saying that I should be in favour of barring any speaker if they are speaking for any political system that has been in power when atrocities were carried out in a country? Whether or not the actual core tenets of the system of politics were the main driver of the atrocities.

If that was the case, I don't think I'd be able to support speakers in favour of any political system; at this point I doubt if there if any political structure which has been tried that hasn't committed some kind of savagery.

For now, I'll stick with barring Nazis. (Stalinists too, though I don't think they are as popular these days as Nazis seem to be.)

No I am talking about equally abusive or similarly abusive systems. Communism killed 100+ million nazism killed 30+ million why won't you ban both it is intellectually inconstant not to at least if you take our argument for banning Nazis at face value.

As for stalinists being less popular or not. It is a hell of a lot easier to get away with being a stalinist. When was the last time Tory appointed a Nazi, Neo-Nazi or Nazi apologist as advisor? Yet Corbyn seems to be able to appoint the likes of andrew murray a communist and stalinist apologist as an advisor doing the last election and yet many people who take issue with Nazi's dont have a problem with that despite the fact he defends a man who murdered nearly 40 million people. Or that time when Corbyn addressed a crowed on may day 2016 where people were carrying portraits of Stalin.

Again my main point is the inconsistency of your argument, leaving it wide open to abuse (which has also been historically proven) hence the reason I don't support it. You are giving one side a free pass even though they commit the same crimes and going by pure body count committed those crimes on a greater scale.

Red_Wake

B0jangles wrote: »

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

So you actually believe in equality of the bullet. If that "progressive" standard is met you can kill anyone you want and or advocate it provided you make it clear it is equal opportunity when it comes to being sent to the gas chamber? Also Communism is a historically proven yes on that account.

So there we have it you can advocate mass killing and genocide provided you have the right label pretexting your actions. Think this whole trend has proved the benefit o free speech, exposes hypocrisy and shines a light on those who claim to be about protecting people yet don't mind or see the need to confront an ideology that has murdered 100 million people.

The main issue which is ultimately problematic when it comes to free speech is that you are totally inconstant, and advocate or give a pass to one system that believe its ok to murder people on mass, yet argue that free speech is dangerous because some might argue in favour of another systems that murder people on mass. Just totally inconstant would only be advocated by some who thinks murder in the form of one is fine but not the other. That why you or people/governments like you should not be trusted when it comes to regulating free speech you would total abuse it.

I've read this three times and I'm still not sure what you are saying?

I think you're saying that I should be in favour of barring any speaker if they are speaking for any political system that has been in power when atrocities were carried out in a country? Whether or not the actual core tenets of the system of politics were the main driver of the atrocities.

If that was the case, I don't think I'd be able to support speakers in favour of any political system; at this point I doubt if there if any political structure which has been tried that hasn't committed some kind of savagery.

For now, I'll stick with barring Nazis. (Stalinists too, though I don't think they are as popular these days as Nazis seem to be.)

Tbf, they've rebranded themselves, they go by the term socialists now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

B0jangles

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

No I am talking about equally abusive or similarly abusive systems. Communism killed 100+ million nazism killed 30+ million why won't you ban both it is intellectually inconstant not to at least if you take our argument for banning Nazis at face value.

As for stalinists being less popular or not. It is a hell of a lot easier to get away with being a stalinist. When was the last time Tory appointed a Nazi, Neo-Nazi or Nazi apologist as advisor? Yet Corbyn seems to be able to appoint the likes of andrew murray a communist and stalinist apologist as an advisor doing the last election and yet many people who take issue with Nazi's dont have a problem with that despite the fact he defends a man who murdered nearly 40 million people. Or that time when Corbyn addressed a crowed on may day 2016 where people were carrying portraits of Stalin.

Again my main point is the inconsistency of your argument, leaving it wide open to abuse (which has also been historically proven) hence the reason I don't support it. You are giving one side a free pass even though they commit the same crimes and going by pure body count committed those crimes on a greater scale.

Part of my stance is based on simple pragmatism. Stalinism is a largely dead ideology, I'm very glad to say. Nazism is not.

If someone tried to give a speech about the glories of life under Stalinism, they'd be lucky to get 20 people to show up. Neo-Nazis have held marches in the street in the US and in Europe in the last year.

If the Stalinists start successfully proselytizing to a whole generation of young people, as the Neo-Nazis/Alt-right have been doing, then action should be taken to stop them.

If I object to extremist Islamists radicalizing young people via the internet, am I required to also object to the online activities of extremist Christian Scientists? Or can it be admitted that all extremist ideologies are not equal, nor do they present an equal level of threat to modern society?

Yer Da sells Avon

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

In addition your intellectually founder Marx specifically referred to certain ethnic groups as "racial trash" in a published 1848 article.

I hate to be a pedant (I f**king love to be a pedant), but did Marx write that, or was it someone else? In what context was it written, and was the writer quoting the words of another philosopher? Also, do you have a link to said article?

20Cent

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

How one murdered 30+ million the other murdered 100+ million. People who advocate either are equally repulsive and despicable human beings.

Who do the communist protesters outside the Tory party thing want to kill?

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

If I object to extremist Islamists radicalizing young people via the internet, am I required to also object to the online activities of extremist Christian Scientists? Or can it be admitted that all extremist ideologies are not equal, nor do they present an equal level of threat to modern society?

If the ideologies in question engaged in mass murder and argues in favour of mass killing in order to achieve its aims, then they are a threat or equal threat. As for Stalin not being popular you are trying to divorce his actions from that of communist action they should not be separated without the communist system he could no have done what he did.

As for the popularity of communism and those that justify the system put it this way in my four years in university and I never once met an avowed and openly admitted nazi despite their supposed rise. I had countless encounters with open communists many of who spoke and were applauded in debating chambers. So to pretend that one tyrannical system is on the rise and the other not, is simply ignoring the reality. Put it this way walk around with a hammer and sickle flag then try a swastika flag and see what the level of tolerance for each is. I would wager it won't be equal in that you will get away fine with the former and not the latter.

Again both are equally bad but censorship is not the answer because people like you would abuse those powers based on your intellectually inconstant argument and approach to the issue.

Jcarroll07

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I hate to be a pedant (I f**king love to be a pedant), but did Marx write that, or was it someone else? In what context was it written, and was the writer quoting the words of another philosopher? Also, do you have a link to said article?

It was written in the journal "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" 1849 (apologise i said 1848 above) March April Edition. Of which Marx and Engels his intellectual partner were editors.

He has other pretty damning quotes as well like "The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way." that was taken from a March 22nd, 1853 article he wrote for the New York Daily Tribune. Or where he said these groups must "perish in a revolutionary whirle-wind/holocaust/killing" (last word depends on your specific translation from the original german). But there you go feel free to google around using above quotes and citations.

Edit: Also I think we are getting a little off topic happy to carry this part of the conversation on in the appropriate trend, if we need to.

Professor Moriarty

Here is an example of how extremists can be denied the right to speak in a democracy without protestors resorting to violence or threatening violence. From the article:

A controversial Polish rightwing speaker has cancelled a visit to the UK, after MPs and campaigners urged the Home Office to block his entry to the country due to concerns about hate speech.

B0jangles

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

If the ideologies in question engaged in mass murder and argues in favour of mass killing in order to achieve its aims, then they are a threat or equal threat. As for Stalin not being popular you are trying to divorce his actions from that of communist action they should not be separated without the communist system he could no have done what he did.

As for the popularity of communism and those that justify the system put it this way in my four years in university and I never once met an avowed and openly admitted nazi despite their supposed rise. I had countless encounters with open communists many of who spoke and were applauded in debating chambers. So to pretend that one tyrannical system is on the rise and the other not, is simply ignoring the reality. Put it this way walk around with a hammer and sickle flag then try a swastika flag and see what the level of tolerance for each is. I would wager it won't be equal in that you will get away fine with the former and not the latter.

Again both are equally bad but censorship is not the answer because people like you would abuse those powers based on your intellectually inconstant argument and approach to the issue.

It is possible to be a Communist and not be in favour of the elimination of perceived 'lesser' people. (Personally, I think Communism is an interesting idea which is unworkable in reality.) If I met a self-described Communist, I'd expect them to be something of an idealist, with lots of utopian ideas about the perfect society which simply not work when applied to how human societies actually function.

You simply cannot say the same about Nazism - ideas of racial superiority and inferiority are hardwired into it at its core.
If I met a self-described Nazi, or Neo-nazi, I'd absolutely expect them to be a hardcore racist, wouldn't you?

DickSwiveller

B0jangles wrote: »

It is possible to be a Communist and not be in favour of the elimination of perceived 'lesser' people. (Personally, I think Communism is an interesting idea which is unworkable in reality.) If I met a self-described Communist, I'd expect them to be something of an idealist, with lots of utopian ideas about the perfect society which simply not work when applied to how human societies actually function.

You simply cannot say the same about Nazism - ideas of racial superiority and inferiority are hardwired into it at its core.
If I met a self-described Nazi, or Neo-nazi, I'd absolutely expect them to be a hardcore racist, wouldn't you?

Ideas of racial superiority are common place in Japan, Serbia etc. Are you going to ban them all too?

Thankfully, the government don't police people's thoughts. If the nazis incite violence then they can be arrested. Appointing thought police to deal with them isn't the way to go.

B0jangles

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Ideas of racial superiority are common place in Japan, Serbia etc. Are you going to ban them all too?

Thankfully, the government don't police people's thoughts. If the nazis incite violence then they can be arrested. Appointing thought police to deal with them isn't the way to go.

Do such ideas extend to actually eliminating 'lesser' races? Unless you believe it is possible to be a Nazi who is not in favour of eliminating people they think are 'lesser', there is no need to fearmonger about 'thought-policing'.

Declaring yourself to be a Nazi or Neo-nazi is to declare yourself to be in favour of such practices.

I don't have to wait for a white supremacist to tell me how he/she feels about black people; it's in the name. Similarly I don't have to wait for a Nazi to tell me their opinion of Jews, Slavs, Gay people, or any of the other people they wanted to eradicate - calling youself a Nazi is enough of a giveaway.

Yer Da sells Avon

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

It was written in the journal "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" 1849 (apologise i said 1848 above) March April Edition.

I didn't even notice that you had got the year wrong, tbh. I was too busy focusing on the fact that Marx didn't refer to any ethnic groups as 'racial trash'. The article is worth reading in its entirety, rather than selectively quoting a couple of dubiously translated words, sans context, to make a fallacious point (i.e. that the left are essentially as bad as the far-right). But as you say, it's off-topic. The point I'm making, somewhat laboriously, is that it is possible to view Socialism as inherently wrong or misguided without drawing upon the wealth of predominantly American propaganda that tries to claim it's as ideologically evil as Nazism.

Back on topic, I'm not opposed to the idea of no-platforming people who preach hatred (there's a massive difference between not giving someone a platform and denying them free speech). There is something very Utopian about the idea of 'hearing them out' and hoping that you'll be able to intellectually stomp their arguments into the ground, and that everyone is rational and intelligent and we'll all live happily ever after and we can all have pints and take selfies with that nice Mr Farridge when the college debate is over.

Brian?

Red_Wake wrote: »

Are you divorcing the characteristics and actions of socialist governments from their aspirations a bit here?

Systems should only be judged by their consequences and methods, and with socialism[and fascism as well] there's a consistent methodology of authoritarianism involving suppression and elimination of opposition.

Writing off the flaws synonymous with a given system is dangerous as it invites repetition of past mistakes, which in this cases is state sponsored brutality.

The good ol straw man of socialism and fascism being equal. They aren't. At a guess, about 50% of European governments have a soloist party in power.

A core tenant of fascism is eliminating anyone who's different.

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

It is possible to be a Communist and not be in favour of the elimination of perceived 'lesser' people. (Personally, I think Communism is an interesting idea which is unworkable in reality.) If I met a self-described Communist, I'd expect them to be something of an idealist, with lots of utopian ideas about the perfect society which simply not work when applied to how human societies actually function.

You simply cannot say the same about Nazism - ideas of racial superiority and inferiority are hardwired into it at its core.
If I met a self-described Nazi, or Neo-nazi, I'd absolutely expect them to be a hardcore racist, wouldn't you?

You can be an idealist and believe in the "New man" and still engaged in the most horrific of crimes. Robespierre did it as did the Communists and Nazis when it come to pursuing this ideal of the "New man" upon which the supposed utopian society would be built. Idealist can and have believed in genocide and mass killing to again another historical fact.

Brian?

Red_Wake wrote: »

Tbf, they've rebranded themselves, they go by the term socialists now.

You don't understand the difference between a Stalinist and a socialist? That's wilful ignorance on your part.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Ah Brian, my old compadre, I thought you had laid down your sword and humbly admitted defeat. Not so it seems. When dealing with blatant hypocrites, whataboutery is required.

I'd admit defeat if you put any sort of cogent argument together that didn't involve whataboutery, a straw man argument or hyperbolic hand wringing.

Jcarroll07

Brian? wrote: »

The good ol straw man of socialism and fascism being equal. They aren't. At a guess, about 50% of European governments have a soloist party in power.

A core tenant of fascism is eliminating anyone who's different.

Radical Socialists or communists have believed in removing/murdering people who are different too. Albeit most of the time as a result of their intellectual diversity rather then their ethnic or racial diversity, with the exception of national socialism that is. I know we are not big on giving the nazi's their full name but is worth reminding people of the facts every now and then.

Brian?

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

You can be an idealist and believe in the "New man" and still engaged in the most horrific of crimes. Robespierre did it as did the Communists and Nazis when it come to pursuing this ideal of the "New man" upon which the supposed utopian society would be built. Idealist can and have believed in genocide and mass killing to again another historical fact.

Idealists have believed in Pacifism as well. What's your point? Are you attempting to see all idealists can't be trusted?

Yer Da sells Avon

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So you would be in favour of similar restrictions on communists? Like the ones who march on the streets during the Tory party conferences? I hope you're not inconsistent.

I was in Manchester during the most recent Tory conference and there were a lot of communists on the streets, waving banners with such offensive slogans as 'No to Austerity' and 'Unite against Fracking' and 'Justice for Grenfell'. You are not comparing like with like, Mr Swiveller.

DickSwiveller

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I was in Manchester during the most recent Tory conference and there were a lot of communists on the streets, waving banners with such offensive slogans as 'No to Austerity' and 'Unite against Fracking' and 'Justice for Grenfell'. You are not comparing like with like, Mr Swiveller.

And the Soviet flags?

Brian?

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Radical Socialists or communists have believed in removing/murdering people who are different too. Albeit most of the time as a result of their intellectual diversity rather then their ethnic or racial diversity, with the exception of national socialism that is. I know we are not big on giving the nazi's their full name but is worth reminding people of the facts every now and then.

And radical Muslims blow themselves up. Radical Christians kill abortion doctors. Radical Hindus set themselves on fire. Are they all equal to fascism as well?

Do you want another set if proofs that Nazis were not socialists? They stole the name to obfustucate. Historical fact.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

And the Soviet flags?

You have a problem with flags? You want those banned as well as protests?

DickSwiveller

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Flegs!

Dick, are you one of those people who pretends that the hammer & sickle (an emblem of the worker/peasant alliance) is equivalent to a swastika?

Yes

Jcarroll07

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I didn't even notice that you had got the year wrong, tbh. I was too busy focusing on the fact that Marx didn't refer to any ethnic groups as 'racial trash'. The article is worth reading in its entirety, rather than selectively quoting a couple of dubiously translated words, sans context, to make a fallacious point (i.e. that the left are essentially as bad as the far-right). But as you say, it's off-topic. The point I'm making, somewhat laboriously, is that it is possible to view Socialism as inherently wrong or misguided without drawing upon the wealth of predominantly American propaganda that tries to claim it's as ideologically evil as Nazism.

I can debate that with you on the proper trend but the racial trash statement was in relation to certain ethnic groups, Brettons, Highlanders Slaves ect, who Marx and Engles saw as predominantly being made up of peasantry and therefor inherently reactionary to the values of the revolution thus the need for them to be eliminated. I admit author in this specific case was Engels but the joint editor of the journal was Marx and there were intellectual partners. Later statement by marx show he was of that mind set specifically the 1852 article i mentioned.

Jcarroll07

Brian? wrote: »

Idealists have believed in Pacifism as well. What's your point? Are you attempting to see all idealists can't be trusted?

No when I said I had come into contact with communists in university the response was they were probably idealist there for not really a danger. My response then was you can be an idealist and still believe in mass murder, not saying all idealist believe that but some do and have.

ancapailldorcha

I've deleted a few low quality posts. Please stay on topic. Anyone wishing to discuss Communism or Socialism vs Capitalism is more than welcome to start a new thread.

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

Similarly I don't have to wait for a Nazi to tell me their opinion of Jews, Slavs, Gay people, or any of the other people they wanted to eradicate - calling youself a Nazi is enough of a giveaway.

I can support that logic, there for when some one declares to be a communist we don't need to actually hear them out just base our opinion off historical actions i.e they believe in mass murder and genocide. Coming to the tune of 100+ million in the last century.

Fair enough means we don't have to listen to the "they didn't do it properly" cr*p.

I still wouldn't restrict their ability to speak though getting back on point communist or Nazi.

Brian?

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

I can support that logic, there for when some one declares to be a communist we don't need to actually hear them out just base our opinion off historical actions i.e they believe in mass murder and genocide. Coming to the tune of 100+ million in the last century.

Fair enough means we don't have to listen to the "they didn't do it properly" cr*p.

I still wouldn't restrict their ability to speak though getting back on point communist or Nazi.

Even the worst estimates by rabid anti communists put the death toll at 94m. This includes anyone who the red army killed on their way to Berlin(a lot of German soldiers) and people who died of hunger from famine. So the 94m fugues is already highly questionable to the point of being out right incorrect. So where are you getting your +100m from? Pulling it out of thin air to make a point.

Even though communist regimes did terrible things and fascist regimes did terrible things, both should still be allowed a platform to speak imo.

The earlier infographic on how allowing the Nazis to speak was how Hitler came to power is a tab oversimplified. It was the violent counter protests he Nazis used against opponents that really did the trick. If we draw the line at violence, I think we’ll be grand.

Allow everyone their say. Including the counter protests.

Jcarroll07

Brian? wrote: »

Allow everyone their say. Including the counter protests.

I can agree with that specific point.

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

Even the worst estimates by rabid anti communists put the death toll at 94m. This includes anyone who the red army killed on their way to Berlin(a lot of German soldiers) and people who died of hunger from famine. So the 94m fugues is already highly questionable to the point of being out right incorrect. So where are you getting your +100m from? Pulling it out of thin air to make a point.

Even though communist regimes did terrible things and fascist regimes did terrible things, both should still be allowed a platform to speak imo.

The earlier infographic on how allowing the Nazis to speak was how Hitler came to power is a tab oversimplified. It was the violent counter protests he Nazis used against opponents that really did the trick. If we draw the line at violence, I think we’ll be grand.

Allow everyone their say. Including the counter protests.

It's impossible to have your say when someone is shouting you down. Throughout this entirethread, you still haven't acknowledged this simple point.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Move away from the death tallies of various ideologies please. Feel free to start a new thread.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's impossible to have your say when someone is shouting you down. Throughout this entirethread, you still haven't acknowledged this simple point.

I've acknowledged it pages ago. You don't seem to want to hear it though. What I object to is censoring protesters name of free speech. You don't feel they are legitimate protests, that's our disagreement. Keep up.

Jcarroll07

Brian? wrote: »

I've acknowledged it pages ago. You don't seem to want to hear it though. What I object to is censoring protesters name of free speech. You don't feel they are legitimate protests, that's our disagreement. Keep up.

I dont think anyone is taking issue (or at least I am not) with protesters per say, rather those that take it upon themselves to try and shut down rather then simply protest an event. There is a difference between protesting and shutting down I presume we are all in agreement on that.

Brian?

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

I dont think anyone is taking issue (or at least I am not) with protesters per say, rather those that take it upon themselves to try and shut down rather then simply protest an event. There is a difference between protesting and shutting down I presume we are all in agreement on that.

Fundamentally we are in agreement.

Here’s the real world situation though.

Scenario A.

1. Speaker announced
2. Protestors protest
3. Threaten bigger protests at speech
4. Speaker cancelled due to security concerns.

Scenario B

1-3 Are the same as scenario A
4. Protesters march into speech and attempt to shout down speaker.


Now in neither scenario is anyone being censored. But some people want to implement censorship, they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest. To others this is justified because everyone should be allowed to speak freely, but that really means one side gets to speak freely.

So who decides when protests go too far? Who has responsibility for implementing the censorship?

Professor Moriarty

Brian? wrote: »

Fundamentally we are in agreement.

Here’s the real world situation though.

Scenario A.

1. Speaker announced
2. Protestors protest
3. Threaten bigger protests at speech
4. Speaker cancelled due to security concerns.

Scenario B

1-3 Are the same as scenario A
4. Protesters march into speech and attempt to shout down speaker.


Now in neither scenario is anyone being censored. But some people want to implement censorship, they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest. To others this is justified because everyone should be allowed to speak freely, but that really means one side gets to speak freely.

So who decides when protests go too far? Who has responsibility for implementing the censorship?

There is legislation regarding lawful assembly. If protesters adhere to the law then no problem. If they don't, then they should be arrested and charged.

The Legend Of Kira

Brian? wrote: »

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

I dont think anyone is taking issue (or at least I am not) with protesters per say, rather those that take it upon themselves to try and shut down rather then simply protest an event. There is a difference between protesting and shutting down I presume we are all  in agreement on that.

Fundamentally we are in agreement.

Here’s the real world situation though.

Scenario A.

1. Speaker announced
2. Protestors protest
3. Threaten bigger protests at speech
4. Speaker cancelled due to security concerns.

Scenario B

1-3 Are the same as scenario A
4. Protesters march into speech and attempt to shout down speaker.


Now in neither scenario is anyone being censored.  But some people want to implement censorship, they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest. To others this is justified because everyone should be allowed to speak freely, but that really means one side gets to speak freely.

So who decides when protests go too far? Who has responsibility for implementing the censorship?

I ll reply to some parts of your post.

""  Now in neither scenario is anyone being censored. ""

If the speaker is being shouted down to the point where he/she can,t speak to the audience then yes the speaker is being censored + people in attendance in the audience their rights are also being infringed on if they can,t listen to a speaker speak about something then afterwards make up their own minds if they agree or disagree with points the speaker made.

""  But some people want to implement censorship, they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest ""

If a mob arrives with the intent purpose of shutting down a public meeting & if they get removed by security, that,s not censorship its allowing the meeting to go ahead without it being stopped by a self appointed mob, now if people boo or jeer a speaker after he or she has made their speech I have no issue with that as the speaker has argue their case & if people in the audience want to cheer or boo afterwards I take no problem with that.

"" they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest ""

Scenario experiment/ lets say a small mob enters a  meeting at their local council with the intent purpose of stopping the council meeting from taking place & if the council gets security & the gardai to remove the small mob so the council meeting can go ahead,  just because the small mob are stopped from preventing a council meeting taking place doesn,t mean that they re being censored.

On another note on a point of observation from earlier this afternoon, while I was in a local cafe earlier. I observed  there was a repeal 8th stall in the street/area-  a few feet away from the stall there was a silent pro life counter protest, they had non graphic banners while making their counter protest against the repeal 8th stall, while I was observing the pro life counter protesters they never interfered with the repeal 8th stall nor did they try shout down the people manning the repeal 8th stall either,  goes to show that some can still make their point peacefully while not interfering with the assembly of other people with an opposing viewpoint.