I'm not sure I'd agree with you on the personal context/social context. While certainly some thing can be done even against ones own personal beliefs for the good of society I don't think denying the speech to scum is one of them. A racist d-bag saying "I'm racist, I hate them NASCARs because they are inferior" is certainly reprehensible (if you substitute the NASCAR part, maybe reprehensible even without the substitution if you into that sort of thing, never understood it myself) but deplatforming them does nothing to protect society. If they were calling for violence, sure, but just saying disgusting things is not some societal danger atleast in my opinion. Society is not in some danger from some sorry Howdy Hitderp types speaking about how much of a loser they are they gotta blame everything beyond themselves for their own failures and inadequacy and rely on something as dumb as their skin color to make themselves feel better or there would be something far more wrong with society then those pieces of crap (not offense to crap, crap is useful).Genth wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:57 pm A lot of people here talk about 'context', especially in terms of issues like the 'free speech rights' of Nazis. It's important to understand that there is a difference between personal context and social context. One can have a positive personal context - you believe in the right of freedom of speech, even for those you disagree with, as a principle that must be upheld for the good of everyone. But equally so, there is a social context which (I would argue) shows that you cannot debate fascists, their operational tactic is so anathema to free speech that you have to vigorously oppose them with protests and yes, calling for deplatforming. You can have nuance in that in terms of how much you want to rely on authorities to flex their power in this case, sure, but that then gets into a tactical argument. But my appraisal of the social context means that despite your personal context, calling for them to be given platforms and calmly 'debated' means that, unintentionally, you are supporting them. That does not mean I am saying you are lying when you give your beliefs and reasons, but just that despite what you believe, there is an outcome of your beliefs which I oppose.
Similarly, it does not matter that Kovat firmly, deeply believes in the state's infallibility, it does not matter that he honestly deeply believes that the Cardassian system is the best thing for society and that it does good. His actions and beliefs, though principled, are just fodder for the Cardassian state to get away with whatever it wants.
Though I also think letting them stand on their soapbox is about not debating them or any thing, its letting them more or less hang themselves. Some Neo-Nutzi wearing a nice suit, looking clean cut, and speaking in riddle and metaphors to escape censorship can far more easily entice people angry and on the fence to their cause, make people think they aren't as bad as people say, even wonder why people are so afraid they are willing to commit acts of violence and censor the speech of Shitler Jr. Push that garbage underground it just festers, adapts, but air it out, let the Neo-Nutzis spew their bile and hatred while looking like, sounding like, and acting like madmen I think helps show what they are are, scum. You don't debate them, you don't engage them, you let them dig their own social grave and rant to their shrinking echo-chamber. And yes that might be a naive approach but I think its a better one then restricting rights, when someone cannot express themselves with words and protests they tend to find other outlets and thats true for any group.
I also disagree platforming or even debating them is supporting them. Supporting their rights, yes, but not them or their beliefs. The ACLU are not Nazi sympathizers because they defended them in Skokie, they are free speech supporters and believed that even Neo-Nutzis deserve the same rights as everyone, the same ACLU that has been accused of being highly biased for liberals. Someone can support the rights of someone without supporting them personally, like I support the right for weed to be legalized despite detesting the stuff and find most who do the stuff beyond causally to be kind of annoying (and thats not me equating annoying potheads with Neo-Nazis, just an example), I just feel that marijuana is shown not to be too harmful and people should have the right to use it recreationally. I support the rights of gun grabbers to want to say they want to grab guns despite vehemently disagreeing with them, I support the rights of moronic anti-abortion activists being morons who give nary a shit about a kid once they come flying out to be able to say what idiots they are (its probably subtle but you may be able to tell I really dislike them).
One can believe in the rights of someone without believing in their beliefs. One can even believe in their rights if they don't like the outcome. I think forcing your own beliefs on someone is pretty effed up behavior honestly, attempting to restrict their rights because your dislike or disagree with what they believe.
