What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

An End to Civility.

Even if they keep to themselves and don't disrupt the societal order? Prison costs money. A lot of money. It's far more efficient to let political dissidents be, and let them feel like they're making a difference by protesting or yelling about it on the internet.
Just to give an idea on how much prisons cost and why it's probably a good idea to avoid throwing people in prison for petty reasons, as of 2015 it costs about $33,000 dollars on average to incarcerate someone for a single year in the US (averaging from 45 states that participated in the study). If someone is just a racist and not otherwise being disruptive to society that's not a good enough reason to throw them in prison. Just being an asshole or hateful is not criminal behavior. Acting on hate however is. A person is fine speaking on how much they hate other people as much as they want as long as they don't turn that hate into action. On economic reasons alone we should avoid putting people in prisons if we don't have to because of the costs associated, this is one of the major reasons I advocate things like abolishing drug prohibition because drug offenders make a significant chunk of the prison population and generally the only reason they're considered harmful is because the government says so. You also have to consider that not only would inmates not be incurring costs by being in prison, but they would also be generating tax revenue if they weren't in prison so the benefit to the government is two fold in economic terms.
 
@sneakykitten, he's literally saying that everything right of center are Nazis and ISIS, or the equivalent. That is factually incorrect.
The groups she showed were bad groups that did bad things. I don't feel like anyone deserves to go to prison however I sympathize with @Chessia at conservative groups that grow authoritarian and stomp on minorities.

This entire discussion is confusing me a lot. ^_^;
 
Last edited:
The positive benefits thing, or the revolution thing? I'll address both.

Eventually we'll get to a point where every Third World nation will be First World, so to speak. Where the entire concept of World in regards to economic standing is a thing of the past. The nastiness of colonialism spread that technology. Could it have been done better? Indubitably. Does it still produce positive effects among the morass of negative? Still yes.
A. It's again supposition to assume everyone will eventually be brought up to first world standards, the current liberal paradigm necessitates a neocolonialist exploitation of developing states. B. When you say it could have indubitably done better, you by definition concede that on the whole colonialism did unnecessary harm that was avoidable. At that point you can't say colonialism as it was practiced was on the whole better than any alternatives.

Even if they keep to themselves and don't disrupt the societal order? Prison costs money. A lot of money. It's far more efficient to let political dissidents be, and let them feel like they're making a difference by protesting or yelling about it on the internet.
Nazis and reactionary ideologies by definition do not keep to themselves and are inherently disruptive to social order.

There's a key difference between now and the 1930s. We've already know what happens when fascist powers rise to power, and it's engrained into the cultural subconscious that fascism=bad. Back then, people didn't know what they were getting into. We've changed a lot in 90 years, as a society.
Apparently not so much: There is a white supremacist in the White House who admits to having kept a copy of Hitler's speeches next to his bed to read, who actively pandered to reactionary elements, who has now created concentration camps, and people are defending these concentration camps as "well the law is the law", literallly, "befehl ist befehl" because they've bought into the propaganda spread by collaborationist conservative media. These people do not realize that they are supporting Fascism and a Fascist, but they are Fascists nonetheless.

My apologies. You didn't state it on your profile, so I had to guess.

Then what do you call defining reactionaries by exclusively showing extremist movements on the conservative side of the political spectrum? At least have some variety.
Reactionaries are inherently defined by their opposition to change and their desire to reverse it, be it liberalism, socialism, or anarchism; reactionary ideologies are by definition conservative. So yes, the only examples of reactionaries I have are conservative because reactionary ideologies are extreme conservative ideologies. Trying to be a non-conservative reactionary is like trying to be a Marxist opposed to communes.
 
A person is fine speaking on how much they hate other people as much as they want as long as they don't turn that hate into action.
No they're not. Hate speech pushes the targets of it out of the public discourse, it is inherently disruptive to the public order and should in any civilized country be criminalized, starting with fines and moving up to work camps.
 
Hate speech does the things you describe yet should we really criminalize it to such an extent? Work camps for people who say hateful things? Sounds a lot like the kinds of behaviors you don't like from conservatives.
 
A. It's again supposition to assume everyone will eventually be brought up to first world standards, the current liberal paradigm necessitates a neocolonialist exploitation of developing states.
So you think that less developed nations will be purposefully kept in the state they are now so their western overlords can continue to exploit them?
B. When you say it could have indubitably done better, you by definition concede that on the whole colonialism did unnecessary harm that was avoidable. At that point you can't say colonialism as it was practiced was on the whole better than any alternatives.
You're missing my point. I didn't say colonialism is better than any alternative, just that the positive results of colonialism will eventually outweigh the negatives. Even then, I'm not even the one espousing that view. @V4Guss is.
Nazis and reactionary ideologies by definition do not keep to themselves and are inherently disruptive to social order.
There's a difference between individual citizens and organized political parties. You're perfectly capable of sitting quietly at home, twiddling your thumbs, and thinking about how great a dictatorship would be. That isn't disruptive, and the majority of citizens won't be doing much more than that, or leading a march or something.
There is a white supremacist in the White House who admits to having kept a copy of Hitler's speeches next to his bed to read, who actively pandered to reactionary elements, who has now created concentration camps, and people are defending these concentration camps as "well the law is the law", literallly, "befehl ist befehl" because they've bought into the propaganda spread by collaborationist conservative media. These people do not realize that they are supporting Fascism and a Fascist, but they are Fascists nonetheless.
Trump isn't a fascist though. He's an idiot who got himself elected, even if said election was highly dubious. The current administration has made no moves towards taking over the government.
Reactionaries are inherently defined by their opposition to change, be it liberalism, socialism, or anarchism; reactionary ideologies are by definition conservative.
I never denied that? You just showed off the worst the far right has to offer.
Hate speech does the things you describe yet should we really criminalize it to such an extent? Work camps for people who say hateful things? Sounds a lot like the kinds of behaviors you don't like from conservatives.
This. This. A thousand times this.
 
Hate speech does the things you describe yet should we really criminalize it to such an extent? Work camps for people who say hateful things? Sounds a lot like the kinds of behaviors you don't like from conservatives.
No I'm not playing this game with you, that's just more equivocationalist bullshit. This is stupid beyond all comprehension: The person who advocates that you or I should be murdered for being transgender is not equal to the person who wants that guy in a prison for saying that.
So you think that less developed nations will be purposefully kept in the state they are now so their western overlords can continue to exploit them?
That's what happened in colonialism, it's what's happening now. Yes.

You're missing my point. I didn't say colonialism is better than any alternative, just that the positive results of colonialism will eventually outweigh the negatives. Even then, I'm not even the one espousing that view. @V4Guss is.
Which, again supposition.

There's a difference between individual citizens and organized political parties. You're perfectly capable of sitting quietly at home, twiddling your thumbs, and thinking about how great a dictatorship would be. That isn't disruptive, and the majority of citizens won't be doing much more than that, or leading a march or something.
If a Nazi is sitting at home thinking of the Fuhrer, he's free to do that, the second he steps outside and starts advocating for it, he by definition is.

Trump isn't a fascist though. He's an idiot who got himself elected, even if said election was highly dubious. The current administration has made no moves towards taking over the government.
He's a Fascist, like he's not a very smart one, but he's a Fascist, he clearly wants to be a dictator, he loves dictators, that is who he is, and that's not true either, the current administration has made clear moves to stuff the judiciary, undermine the rule of law, and now looks to be undermining the very concept of free and fair elections.

I never denied that? You just showed off the worst the far right has to offer.
Because that's what reactionaries are, the very worst the Right has to offer.
 
No I'm not playing this game with you, that's just more equivocationalist bullshit. This is stupid beyond all comprehension: The person who advocates that you or I should be murdered for being transgender is not equal to the person who wants that guy in a prison for saying that.
What game? I'm only asking questions? Anyway, I guess in an abstract sense you're right, yet if that guy never acts on it then why put him in prison? They're words. And just recently someone did hate crime me like that and I didn't put her in prison.
 
No they're not. Hate speech pushes the targets of it out of the public discourse, it is inherently disruptive to the public order and should in any civilized country be criminalized, starting with fines and moving up to work camps.
Are you seriously saying that your political opponents should be put in gulags?
You're missing my point. I didn't say colonialism is better than any alternative, just that the positive results of colonialism will eventually outweigh the negatives. Even then, I'm not even the one espousing that view. @V4Guss is.
I don't think I can really say anymore on this that hasn't already been said.

I mean, yes, I'll state it again, colonialism ultimately did result in a net good. It may not have been better than alternatives, but considering how humans behave it's what worked and what was practical.
 
What game? I'm only asking questions? Anyway, I guess in an abstract sense you're right, yet if that guy never acts on it then why put him in prison? They're words. And just recently someone did hate crime me like that and I didn't put her in prison.
The game where you equivocate anti-bigotry to bigotry. They are never equivalent. And if the guy never acts on it then fine, bear in mind advocating for it is an act and should be at bare minimum a fine with repetition increasing in degree of punitive action. And frankly I don't care that you didn't put her in prison, because frankly it shouldn't be up to you. Hate speech and hate crimes are an attack on society as a whole, you may be the primary victim, but you're not the sole target.
Are you seriously saying that your political opponents should be put in gulags?
This will be.... at least the third time, I believe, I've explained to you that "yes, these particular political opponents of mine should be criminalized because their ideology and advocation for it is an attack on our society as a whole" and that no it's not all my political opposition, since my political opposition does not start and end with reactionaries, but also includes various forms of revolutionary socialism or anarchism and market liberalism (ie capitalists) whose ideologies do not inherently call for the ethnic cleansing, murder, or oppression of certain segments of society for wholly arbitrary reasons and thus do not rise to meet that criterion as especially destructive to the very basis of a free and fair society to necessitate such extreme measures as fining for hate speech and gradually working up to work camps if they insist on continuing to advocate in such a manner. Given you haven't paid attention the last, again at least, three times, I don't expect you'll pay attention this time.
 
The game where you equivocate anti-bigotry to bigotry. They are never equivalent. And if the guy never acts on it then fine, bear in mind advocating for it is an act and should be at bare minimum a fine with repetition increasing in degree of punitive action. And frankly I don't care that you didn't put her in prison, because frankly it shouldn't be up to you. Hate speech and hate crimes are an attack on society as a whole, you may be the primary victim, but you're not the sole target.
You're right they aren't equivalent. What I'm like trying to do is gently point out where you are being hateful and saying some forms of hate speech. At the very least being hateful. I agree that bigots attack our whole society. Yet you don't care about the victims and just your version of a perfect society? C'mon @Chessia. 'Send all haters to jail' is kinda hateful. Because they may not even hate you.
 
You're right they aren't equivalent. What I'm like trying to do is gently point out where you are being hateful and saying some forms of hate speech. At the very least being hateful. I agree that bigots attack our whole society. Yet you don't care about the victims and just your version of a perfect society? C'mon @Chessia.
I hate nazis, Nazis are not a minority class in special need of protection. Hating Nazis is not the same thing as hating Jews, kindly fuck off with that insipid shit.
 
No, you are saying send all haters of anyone to jail, and now denying it. I'm fucking off yet not before telling you how you really are being right now.

Direct quote that shows we're not talking about just n**s.

No I'm not playing this game with you, that's just more equivocationalist bullshit. This is stupid beyond all comprehension: The person who advocates that you or I should be murdered for being transgender is not equal to the person who wants that guy in a prison for saying that.
Where are the n**s in there? Sounds like you're just hating on haters. Now I fuck off.
 
No, you are saying send all haters of anyone to jail, and now denying it. I'm fucking off yet not before telling you how you really are being right now.
I'm saying, yes, people who engage speech should be fined and then sent to prison if they insist on it. That is not hate speech. This idea of yours that the two are equivalent is just dumb.
 
This will be.... at least the third time, I believe, I've explained to you that "yes, these particular political opponents of mine should be criminalized because their ideology and advocation for it is an attack on our society as a whole" and that no it's not all my political opposition, since my political opposition does not start and end with reactionaries, but also includes various forms of revolutionary socialism or anarchism and market liberalism (ie capitalists) whose ideologies do not inherently call for the ethnic cleansing, murder, or oppression of certain segments of society for wholly arbitrary reasons and thus do not rise to meet that criterion as especially destructive to the very basis of a free and fair society to necessitate such extreme measures as fining for hate speech and gradually working up to work camps if they insist on continuing to advocate in such a manner. Given you haven't paid attention the last, again at least, three times, I don't expect you'll pay attention this time.
Do you not understand "We are better than than them?"

Just because your enemy is willing to do insane horrible things doesn't mean you have to sink to their level. What you're advocating is the equivalent of "Oh the Axis treated their prisoners like shit so the Allies should have done the same", when they didn't really do that in general. The Allied POW camps were better than the Axis ones.
 
That is hate speech. You are being disrespectful and violent in your posts. You were all for just sending them to gulags before and are now backing down because you know it's wrong.
No, hate speech is advocating an attack on ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, or some other quality that isn't so mutable. No I'm not backing down, they absolutely deserve gulags, but I think we can afford to start at fines for hate speech before sending people to a work camp in Alaska. And yes, violence against reactionaries is perfectly fine by me, we settled that question back in WW2.
 
Last edited:
Do you not understand "We are better than than them?"

Just because your enemy is willing to do insane horrible things doesn't mean you have to sink to their level. What you're advocating is the equivalent of "Oh the Axis treated their prisoners like shit so the Allies should have done the same", when they didn't really do that in general. The Allied POW camps were better than the Axis ones.
You can throw Nazis into work camps and still be better than them, you're not doing it because of their race, their religion, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, their mental health status, or the myriad of other justifications they used for their concentration camps, you literally can not be as bad as Nazis without doing so. For fucks sake most of our prisons are work camps already, at least this way we'll be forcing people who deserve it and not people stopped by cops and given inordinately long sentences for "walking while black".
 
Last edited:
No, hate speech is advocating an attack on ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, or some other quality that isn't so mutable. No I'm not backing down, they absolutely deserve gulags, but I think we can afford to start at fines for hate speech before sending people to Alaska. And yes, violence against reactionaries is perfectly fine by me, we settled that question back in WW2.
You can throw Nazis into work camps and still be better than them. For fucks sake most of our prisons are work camps already, at least this way we'll be forcing people who deserve it and not people stopped by cops and given inordinately long sentences for "walking while black".
You're dehumanizing people which is wrong. I don't get how someone who claims to be left can think like this under normal conditions. Everyone is human/people. Even the fucked up and evil people are and deserve some basic dignity. You don't just treat them like less than animals which is what you seem to be advocating. I know our prison system is fucked up, but what the hell?
 
You're dehumanizing people which is wrong. I don't get how someone who claims to be left can think like this. Everyone is human. Even the fucked up and evil people are human and deserve some basic dignity. You don't just treat them like less than animals which is what you seem to be advocating. I know our prison system is fucked up, but what the hell?
How is treating them like criminals dehumanizing? I've not advocated they lose their right to a fair trial, I've not advocated they be shot outright or liquidated. Literally all I've advocated for is hatespeech laws and the criminalization of organizations or ideologies that inherently attack the very idea of a free and fair society and who actually do dehumanize people and not this farcical broadening of the term you've come up with.
 
How is treating them like criminals dehumanizing? I've not advocated they lose their right to a fair trial, I've not advocated they be shot outright or liquidated. Literally all I've advocated for is hatespeech laws and the criminalization of organizations or ideologies that inherently attack the very idea of a free and fair society and who actually do dehumanize people and not this farcical broadening of the term you've come up with.
You're saying they be sent to concentration camps for dissidents which any modern country outside totalitarian/fascist regimes don't generally do. How do you not see the problem with this?
 
Last edited:
You're saying they be sent to concentration camps for dissidents which any modern country outside totalitarian/fascist regimes don't generally do. How do you not see the problem with this?
I'm advocating they be fined or sent to prisons for criminals for acts which should be criminal, the same as authoritarian barbarian hellscapes like Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Swizterland, and the United Kingdom, to name but a few.
 
I hate nazis, Nazis are not a minority class in special need of protection. Hating Nazis is not the same thing as hating Jews, kindly fuck off with that insipid shit.
Telling members to fuck off is not within the acceptable boundary of debate etiquette on FiC. You don't have to like your fellow users but you will not be abusive towards them. As well wanting some of your enemies put in work camps is not acceptable either. This is your final warning. Ignore it and continue with your previous behavior and you will receive a three day thread ban.
 
Telling members to fuck off is not within the acceptable boundary of debate etiquette on FiC. You don't have to like your fellow users but you will not be abusive towards them. As well wanting some of your enemies put in work camps is not acceptable either. This is your final warning. Ignore it and continue with your previous behavior and you will receive a three day thread ban.
No, anyone who equivocates hate speech laws with Nazism is an imbecile and Nazis deserve work camps. It's telling that you're perfectly fine with my "fellow users" comparing me to a Nazi for advancing hate speech laws that the rest of the civilized world considers standard is just fine, but pointing out how inane that view is is considered "abusive". This is why civility is dead, double standards like this.
 
I wasn't talking about nazis. I was talking about how you seem to hate anyone who hates anyone and wanna send them to work camps. And advocating violence against groups of ppls is not ok. Sending them to prison just because they hate you and never acted on it is not ok. You are actually breaking the law by advocating violence against groups of ppls, not just nazis, I think that's a smokescreen and feel you need to cut out the, "But all I said was 'I hate nazis!'" stuffs.

And as well: Speech is not an action IMO. Hearing a hateful speech makes you anxious yet it doesn't physically hurt you. So no, hate speech is not an action and not worth sending someone to prison over.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom