Politically incorrect prog??

omphaloskepsis wrote: What happens if the person who you think is a Nazi claims that he/she is not a Nazi?

^ It’s certainly avant-garde, and andI’ve never understood how to distinguish between non-prog ag and prog ag in an objective way. I’ll grant that this (and squeeze my macaroni)is certainly the least prog track on the album.

Stressed Cheese wrote: But again, if I ask "is it okay to punch a nazi", I mean, is it okay to punch a nazi. Nothing more, nothing less. A nazi. Saperlipopette! wrote: ^^ Yeah I wouldn't trust your jugdement in regards to what's right either. I'm not particularly idealistic.  And you shouldn't. You should follow your own moral compass. And mine says that I don't have sympathy for nazis getting punched in the face. If yours says that punching that same nazi isn't justified, than I must respect that, even if I can't understand that. I think a State monopoly on violence is better than you running around and breaking the noses on people you dislike. I don't do that, nor advocate for that. Violence is usually wrong, but some people take their hate to such an extreme that they prove an exception to that rule. It's not about people I dislike, it's about people who seem to make it their main goal in life to make this world a worse place. I'm a very emphatic person - which I guess you'd just have to take my word on after all I said - but some people are not deserving of sympathy or respect.

Very quick, just to clear up in what appears to be a misunderstanding: Although we do see things differntly, this comment wasn't adressed to you (hence the ^^). That said: I simply don't believe in violence as a legitimate response to (non-threatening) words or opinions - period. That doesn't mean I can't understand where you're coming from - or that I think you are a violent person. I'm your typical "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - who's admittedly not really willing to die for anything of the sort. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right to me, which means I have to "tolerate the intolerable". 

Atavachron wrote: ^ Except Fascists want to do a lot more than "say something", they want to enslave, torture, and kill you and everything you believe in.   And sadly they still exist today, secretly, despite their defeat in WWll, and would take any opportunity to capture the world.   You might find that hyperbolus ... I indeed hope it is.

Should this topic be moved to General Discussions ? I'd say yes.

Edited by David_D - September 10 2023 at 07:33

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ speech is either free or it isn’t - you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

I'm no free speech absolutist, so one could say that I am not free speech but for much freer speech compared to many others. At least I think there should be laws governing speech which include consequences.... Libel laws, laws on if you can shout fire in a cinema, speech that calls out for people to kill or maim people etc., such things should be regulated. In Canada I don't like our hate speech laws and the government is not as tolerant of free speech as I would wish, and I find a lot of it problematic and self-serving of certain special interest groups.

David_D wrote: Freedom of speech and expressing own opinions is of course very good, but I think with respect for other people values and without being unnecessarily provocative.

I don't think we should be expected to respect other people's values, some values I consider abhorrent. And some absolutely would not accept my, for instance, secular enlightenment values. How tolerant should I be of intolerant values and how respectful of the disrespectful. I guess if we were all respectful of each others values without being that provocative, it might be a better world. That said, I also would like to see children protected form some of their parents values which might be harmful and dangerous to them. And I think things like mockery can have their place in making for a more just, kind and rational world.

I remember after the Charlie Hebdo slaughter people saying they had what was coming to them, which I find sickening. I might not like the cartoons either, but I'd sooner align with Hebdo than those who slaughtered them, threatened them for offending their beliefs, and for those who try to stifle speech with threats of violence.

I think we need balance.

Hrychu wrote: Should this topic be moved to General Discussions ? I'd say yes.

I had planned to move this if nudging this back on track did not work. If it moves back to the Prog then I might possibly move it again.

Logan wrote: David_D wrote: Freedom of speech and expressing own opinions is of course very good, but I think with respect for other people values and without being unnecessarily provocative. I don't think we should be expected to respect other people's values, some values I consider abhorrent. And some absolutely would not accept my, for instance, secular enlightenment values. How tolerant should I be of intolerant values and how respectful of the disrespectful. I guess if we were all respectful of each others values without being that provocative, it might be a better world. That said, I also would like to see children protected form some of their parents values which might be harmful and dangerous to them. And I think things like mockery can have their place in making for a more just, kind and rational world. I remember after the Charlie Hebdo slaughter people saying they had what was coming to them, which I find sickening. I might not like the cartoons either, but I'd sooner align with Hebdo than those who slaughtered them, threatened them for offending their beliefs, and for those who try to stifle speech with threats of violence. I think we need balance.