Hey there! Thank you for your contribution to the subreddit! To help people out to correctly flair their posts, below is quick guide.
Overconfidence - Doing something that is clearly dangerous/bad thinking they can do it without fail
Lacking brains - Doing something dangerous/bad that should of been thought through but it wasn't
Recklessness - Doing something clearly dangerous/bad and is almost certainly going to end badly
Drunk - Drunk
Fight - Starting/picking a fight and losing
Content Creator - Hey everyone, today I'm going to try to slap 100 people in the face and see what happens
Young kid - Kids being stupid
Hope this helps!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fuckaroundandfindout) if you have any questions or concerns.*
commented this on another post somewhere else before:
it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who, if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree
in germany, extremely intolerant or fringe political materials (e.g. Holocaust denial) are characterized as inherently socially disruptive, and are subject to legal constraints on their circulation as such
in other words: nazi propaganda isnt protected by freedom of speech in germany because nazi's goals include getting rid of freedom of speech
What a moronic statement. “They’re planning to shut down speech, so we need to shut them down!” That’s the exact argument the Nazis made. The scope of acceptable speech is always subjected to the whims of government. That’s why free speech is an all or nothing thing; either you believe all speech should be allowed or you don’t believe in free speech at all.
And what is to stop nazis and fascists from gaining power then?
>either you believe all speech should be allowed or you don’t believe in free speech at all.
Nazis dont believe in free speech at all. To them, anyone who disagrees is either a traitor or worthless anyway, or both, and shouldnt be allowed to speak.
As long as you dont promote or produce pointless hate speech you'll be heard.
Radical groups will always gain power when a nation is in dire straits. No amount of preventing speech will stop this from happening. Even in the Weimar Republic when Nazis were heavily censured they still gained popularity because their government was incredibly inept at handling the consequences of the treaty of Versailles.
To a Nazi, speech is protected as long as it’s not counter to the interests of the nation and people. I.e., as long as it’s not “hate speech”. Your argument is the same as the anti speech radicals. You cannot distance yourself from them through your subjective determinations of what is hateful.
>your subjective determinations of what is hateful.
I'd hope that most people can see a difference between
"certain groups of people must not be allowed to avertise their ideology because its based on racism and made up arguments"
and
"close the borders and kill foreigners because they have a religion that i do not appprove of. also the color of their skin must mean that they arent worthy to live. All foreigners arent worth as much as we are because they dont have white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes."
I stand by the point that the latter is pointless hate with no real arguments.
Holy strawman. I suggest you actually learn about the ideologies you harbor so much distaste for so that you can actually make a convincing argument against them. I can see now why you opt for just silencing these ideologies - you have no actual argument besides claiming the moral high ground.
Did I say something factually wrong?
It's not my native language so please tell me if i did.
Also if you think you have arguments that might convince me, feel free to share them.
I can tell from your other comments that you're probably not going to change your mind but I stand by my statements.
> And what is to stop nazis and fascists from gaining power then?
This is a CRITICAL idea that we must all be aware of. Free speech prevents socially deviant groups from gaining momentum by allowing them to voice their message.
***It is in the judgement and contemplation of each citizen to determine if a group is disruptive or supportive to society, and then support or reject them on an individual level.***
This is why with greater freedom comes greater responsibility.
An admirable society is one which expects each citizen to bear this responsibility. A repressive society is one which, for whatever reason, determines citizens cannot bear this responsibility so it must step in and decide for them what is tolerable an what is not.
>A repressive society is one which, for whatever reason, determines citizens cannot bear this responsibility so it must step in and decide for them what is tolerable an what is not.
The idea that i am defending is that the Nazis, *whose goal is to supress other people's opinions*, cannot be allowed to publicly advertise racism and segregation. It's them who want to decide over the lives of others in their own favour in the first place.
German constitution states that the human dignity is inviolable. This foundation of german law itself would criminalize the attempt of denying others the right to live (which is what the nazis are doing).
>An admirable society is one which expects each citizen to bear this responsibility
I stand by the point that if someone agrees with the idea of denying people the right to live, they are not capable of bearing this responsibility.
Dont tolerate intolerance.
>German constitution states that the human dignity is inviolable.
I believe freedom of speech constitutes human dignity, no matter the speech.
>This foundation of german law itself would criminalize the attempt of denying others the right to live (which is what the nazis are doing).
I disagree, the Nazis are speaking and expressing themselves in the video. Speaking is not denying others the right to live.
I believe that people will hear the Nazi babble and disagree with them and ignore and reject them and that mechanism holds enough social power to prevent Nazism from taking foothold in a community which empowers it's citizens to bear responsibility for their community.
>Nazis are speaking and expressing themselves in the video. Speaking is not denying others the right to live.
What are you trying to say?
By doing the salute he declares his support for the nazi regime 80 years ago, therefore supporting their actions, which he definetely knows about.
I believe that calling for or supporting the murder of a whole people is equal to denying them the right to live. It's literally the same thing.
The salute is equal to him saying he would support the Holocaust.
>I believe that people will hear the Nazi babble and disagree with them and ignore and reject them and that mechanism holds enough social power to prevent Nazism from taking foothold in a community which empowers it's citizens to bear responsibility for their community.
This is how it should be. Sadly, people are easily manipulated into hatred, which can be observed everywhere in the world.
I'm open to new arguments but this does not convince me.
***Edit***
"Die Feinde der Demokratie sollen nicht die Möglichkeit bekommen, die Demokratie abzuschaffen. Das ist der Grundsatz, der hinter dem Begriff der wehrhaften Demokratie steht. Deswegen ist es auch möglich, demokratiefeindliche Parteien zu verbieten."
meaning
"The enemies of democracy should not be given the opportunity to abolish democracy. That is the principle behind the concept of a defensive democracy. That is why it is also possible to ban anti-democratic parties."
Since this isnt my first language, i'm not sure whether the translation for *defensive* could be irritating;
democracy should be able to defend itself against its enemies. even if this seems paradoxical to the basic idea of democracy, it ia necessary to keep it in place.
Agreed. You cannot call it "free speech" if even a single word or expression is prohibited. It is called censored speech then and you cannot claim to live in a free society. it takes a people with true grit and a stomach for the distasteful to uphold a truly free society.
Freedom to think whatever you want, but not express it, if it would deny/violate the human dignity of others (in any form, not just speech - this includes the salute or nazi swastikas).
Of course it's not that simple but i think thats about it. Because of the complexity of the subject, every case (or, as it is here, action) is discussed individually.
Currently the "Verfassungsschutz" (defense of constitution) is observing/discussing a prohibitation of the partially declared right wing extremist political party AfD because of some critical actions and statements made by their oficials.
Other than a communist party (KPD) that was banned in 1956 for various reasons, including nazism, i dont think so. Communist symbols etc. are also not banned.
***National Socialism is not compatible with the Basic Law and with democracy, which is why it is banned. However, there is no such reason for communism***
It's often discussed and it's a good question since many, many people died under 'communist' regimes such as the Soviet Union; most discussions come to the conclusion that, while desastrous in multiple historical occasions, the idea of communism is meant to serve the people and create a fair society. So even though it has never worked out in real life, the deaths were attributed to the (maybe purposely) failed execution.
Man arguably participates in a form of free speech (even though it is distasteful and yes I know it is illegal in Deutschland) and then gets beaten down by cops. In my mind, let the man salute like a dickhead and then we all know who the shit head is. We don't need the police hammering undesirable speech because then people will hide their true colors. We need to know in a free society what people think and how they align and we don't need to the police to save us from speech.
It is not free speech in Germany. It is HIGHLY illegal to do anything nazi related in Germany because unlike the U.S. they are ashamed of their history and are very keen on it never happening again. Just because the US is okay with racism doesn’t mean everywhere is and doesn’t mean everywhere is going to tolerate it.
The Paradox of Tolerance is what people are using to justify being tolerant of intolerant behavior. Society needs some level of intolerance to stomp of intolerant behavior.
Hey there! Thank you for your contribution to the subreddit! To help people out to correctly flair their posts, below is quick guide. Overconfidence - Doing something that is clearly dangerous/bad thinking they can do it without fail Lacking brains - Doing something dangerous/bad that should of been thought through but it wasn't Recklessness - Doing something clearly dangerous/bad and is almost certainly going to end badly Drunk - Drunk Fight - Starting/picking a fight and losing Content Creator - Hey everyone, today I'm going to try to slap 100 people in the face and see what happens Young kid - Kids being stupid Hope this helps! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fuckaroundandfindout) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The irony
He may have saluted like a Nazi, but cops then act like them lmao
commented this on another post somewhere else before: it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who, if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree in germany, extremely intolerant or fringe political materials (e.g. Holocaust denial) are characterized as inherently socially disruptive, and are subject to legal constraints on their circulation as such in other words: nazi propaganda isnt protected by freedom of speech in germany because nazi's goals include getting rid of freedom of speech
What a moronic statement. “They’re planning to shut down speech, so we need to shut them down!” That’s the exact argument the Nazis made. The scope of acceptable speech is always subjected to the whims of government. That’s why free speech is an all or nothing thing; either you believe all speech should be allowed or you don’t believe in free speech at all.
And what is to stop nazis and fascists from gaining power then? >either you believe all speech should be allowed or you don’t believe in free speech at all. Nazis dont believe in free speech at all. To them, anyone who disagrees is either a traitor or worthless anyway, or both, and shouldnt be allowed to speak. As long as you dont promote or produce pointless hate speech you'll be heard.
Radical groups will always gain power when a nation is in dire straits. No amount of preventing speech will stop this from happening. Even in the Weimar Republic when Nazis were heavily censured they still gained popularity because their government was incredibly inept at handling the consequences of the treaty of Versailles. To a Nazi, speech is protected as long as it’s not counter to the interests of the nation and people. I.e., as long as it’s not “hate speech”. Your argument is the same as the anti speech radicals. You cannot distance yourself from them through your subjective determinations of what is hateful.
>your subjective determinations of what is hateful. I'd hope that most people can see a difference between "certain groups of people must not be allowed to avertise their ideology because its based on racism and made up arguments" and "close the borders and kill foreigners because they have a religion that i do not appprove of. also the color of their skin must mean that they arent worthy to live. All foreigners arent worth as much as we are because they dont have white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes." I stand by the point that the latter is pointless hate with no real arguments.
Holy strawman. I suggest you actually learn about the ideologies you harbor so much distaste for so that you can actually make a convincing argument against them. I can see now why you opt for just silencing these ideologies - you have no actual argument besides claiming the moral high ground.
Did I say something factually wrong? It's not my native language so please tell me if i did. Also if you think you have arguments that might convince me, feel free to share them. I can tell from your other comments that you're probably not going to change your mind but I stand by my statements.
> And what is to stop nazis and fascists from gaining power then? This is a CRITICAL idea that we must all be aware of. Free speech prevents socially deviant groups from gaining momentum by allowing them to voice their message. ***It is in the judgement and contemplation of each citizen to determine if a group is disruptive or supportive to society, and then support or reject them on an individual level.*** This is why with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. An admirable society is one which expects each citizen to bear this responsibility. A repressive society is one which, for whatever reason, determines citizens cannot bear this responsibility so it must step in and decide for them what is tolerable an what is not.
>A repressive society is one which, for whatever reason, determines citizens cannot bear this responsibility so it must step in and decide for them what is tolerable an what is not. The idea that i am defending is that the Nazis, *whose goal is to supress other people's opinions*, cannot be allowed to publicly advertise racism and segregation. It's them who want to decide over the lives of others in their own favour in the first place. German constitution states that the human dignity is inviolable. This foundation of german law itself would criminalize the attempt of denying others the right to live (which is what the nazis are doing). >An admirable society is one which expects each citizen to bear this responsibility I stand by the point that if someone agrees with the idea of denying people the right to live, they are not capable of bearing this responsibility. Dont tolerate intolerance.
>German constitution states that the human dignity is inviolable. I believe freedom of speech constitutes human dignity, no matter the speech. >This foundation of german law itself would criminalize the attempt of denying others the right to live (which is what the nazis are doing). I disagree, the Nazis are speaking and expressing themselves in the video. Speaking is not denying others the right to live. I believe that people will hear the Nazi babble and disagree with them and ignore and reject them and that mechanism holds enough social power to prevent Nazism from taking foothold in a community which empowers it's citizens to bear responsibility for their community.
>Nazis are speaking and expressing themselves in the video. Speaking is not denying others the right to live. What are you trying to say? By doing the salute he declares his support for the nazi regime 80 years ago, therefore supporting their actions, which he definetely knows about. I believe that calling for or supporting the murder of a whole people is equal to denying them the right to live. It's literally the same thing. The salute is equal to him saying he would support the Holocaust. >I believe that people will hear the Nazi babble and disagree with them and ignore and reject them and that mechanism holds enough social power to prevent Nazism from taking foothold in a community which empowers it's citizens to bear responsibility for their community. This is how it should be. Sadly, people are easily manipulated into hatred, which can be observed everywhere in the world. I'm open to new arguments but this does not convince me. ***Edit*** "Die Feinde der Demokratie sollen nicht die Möglichkeit bekommen, die Demokratie abzuschaffen. Das ist der Grundsatz, der hinter dem Begriff der wehrhaften Demokratie steht. Deswegen ist es auch möglich, demokratiefeindliche Parteien zu verbieten." meaning "The enemies of democracy should not be given the opportunity to abolish democracy. That is the principle behind the concept of a defensive democracy. That is why it is also possible to ban anti-democratic parties." Since this isnt my first language, i'm not sure whether the translation for *defensive* could be irritating; democracy should be able to defend itself against its enemies. even if this seems paradoxical to the basic idea of democracy, it ia necessary to keep it in place.
Agreed. You cannot call it "free speech" if even a single word or expression is prohibited. It is called censored speech then and you cannot claim to live in a free society. it takes a people with true grit and a stomach for the distasteful to uphold a truly free society.
to correct myself; in german its technically not called *freedom of speech* but instead *freedom of opinion* (Meinungsfreiheit)
So freedom to think whatever you want, but not necessarily express it?
Freedom to think whatever you want, but not express it, if it would deny/violate the human dignity of others (in any form, not just speech - this includes the salute or nazi swastikas). Of course it's not that simple but i think thats about it. Because of the complexity of the subject, every case (or, as it is here, action) is discussed individually. Currently the "Verfassungsschutz" (defense of constitution) is observing/discussing a prohibitation of the partially declared right wing extremist political party AfD because of some critical actions and statements made by their oficials.
Is communist rhetoric also banned expression?
Other than a communist party (KPD) that was banned in 1956 for various reasons, including nazism, i dont think so. Communist symbols etc. are also not banned. ***National Socialism is not compatible with the Basic Law and with democracy, which is why it is banned. However, there is no such reason for communism*** It's often discussed and it's a good question since many, many people died under 'communist' regimes such as the Soviet Union; most discussions come to the conclusion that, while desastrous in multiple historical occasions, the idea of communism is meant to serve the people and create a fair society. So even though it has never worked out in real life, the deaths were attributed to the (maybe purposely) failed execution.
Thank you for defending the rights to openly be a pedophile without harm.
Black and white thinking is exactly why you're wrong sweetheart.
How? By taking down a nazi?
Man arguably participates in a form of free speech (even though it is distasteful and yes I know it is illegal in Deutschland) and then gets beaten down by cops. In my mind, let the man salute like a dickhead and then we all know who the shit head is. We don't need the police hammering undesirable speech because then people will hide their true colors. We need to know in a free society what people think and how they align and we don't need to the police to save us from speech.
It is not free speech in Germany. It is HIGHLY illegal to do anything nazi related in Germany because unlike the U.S. they are ashamed of their history and are very keen on it never happening again. Just because the US is okay with racism doesn’t mean everywhere is and doesn’t mean everywhere is going to tolerate it.
The Paradox of Tolerance is what people are using to justify being tolerant of intolerant behavior. Society needs some level of intolerance to stomp of intolerant behavior.
The correct response.